hip hop bunny hop

I still have no idea why you're bringing up DOMA when discussing an amendment which would prohibit state benefits for marriage being conferred to same-sex couples.

Yeah, sure, you could argue that DOMA is contrary to the Full Faith & Credit Clause; but how is that relevant in regards to the proposed amendment?

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

anticipation

Considering that DOMA is a law that defines what marriage essentially is on a federal level, any amendment that would regulate and impose federal mandate over state law has obvious relevance. If a state deems the union of a same-sex couple as valid and worthy of benefits then the implementation of any amendment would be a states rights issue. Currently the few states that recognize same-sex domestic partnerships also confer most of the same rights to those unions that opposite-sex couples enjoy, so the idea that an amendment would eliminate these rights would set a dangerous precedent in my opinion. If the federal government can override matters that have been traditionally restricted to state constitutions and jurisdiction, how exactly does that support the idea of a democratic process or states rights?

hip hop bunny hop

I disagree with your reading of DOMA; the practical effect of DOMA is that when "State X" calls a couple married, and said couple moves to "State Y", the latter has the right to not recognize that marriage, which is perfectly reasonable once you recall that recognizing it means granting pay outs.

Anyways, yeah, Romney is not a states-rights guy. Neither is Obama. Both are intent on forcing their views on this subject (and many others) on the entire nation, and in far too many cases they seek to force their views on other nations.

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

anticipation

link

So yeah, not too sure how you can disagree with my "reading" when the text literally states what I'm saying. But I digress, and I do agree that the practical applications of the law are pretty reasonable. The idea that a state would have to honor another's stipulations simply because the former's high court deems it to be valid doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It would seem that the nation would only have universal recognition of gay marriage through entirely new legislation, which would surely fail miserably in Congress.

hip hop bunny hop

My bad anticipation, I had misunderstanding as to what the law stated.

Anyways, while I agree the legislation forcing all states to recognize, much less allow, gay marriage would fail miserably in Congress, I don't think that's the only way for gay marriage allowed/recognized in all states. A Supreme Court decision could have that effect. However, as long as the court retains its current composition, that seems very unlikely.

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.